September 30, 2013

Political Mercy Killing

Previous comments and posts, spread out through FB as well as here and in Mike King's BLOG, have been opposed on the facts and in the substance—regarding certain criticisms on the DC status-quo. And that's a good thing: a very good thing! For, as Nassim Taleb points out in his most-excellent new book Antifragile (and as I think the exchanges alluded to above have also helped prove), most any truly good idea only gets better under challenge; better still upon surviving its testing in real-world disorder.
In other words, inasmuch as I yearn for more of the dialectic tension brought to this BLOG by considerable intellects (of the likes of King, Yeatts, Schaefer and Shaughnessy), the following are mere off-the-cufff reflections upon what IMHO are several unforgivable failings in our current Administration: lapses in leadership that warrant (pardon the pun) Capital Punishment;-)

Without "regurgitating" all that's been said inter-alia here already, first I'll try to sharpen the point a bit on how/why the passage of the Patient Protection & Affordabilty of Care Act (a.k.a., ACA; a.k.a., Obamacare) is , in fact, "tainted." Then, I'll move from the Obama Administration's signature domestic policy to bookend its other: a hopelessly-tattered foreign policy.

Previously, I broke the ACA's "tortured history" down into three parts: its enduring unpopularity among the electorate; its artificial-resuscitation by the elected that disfigured it in-utero; and finally the unclean, and ultimately unworkable, bill-of-dubious-health tattooed upon it in by our imperious Supreme Court. True enough, as M.Rex (our most-esteemed "King" of professional journalism;-) points out, technically speaking the ACA did squeak through the latter two—legislative and judicial—branches albeit mangled along the way. That said, and I'll say it again, major changes in public policy absolutely require some level of bipartisan support—in order to be successfully implemented. The ACA had none of it! And while no one could really expect more from its inept foster parents—space-queen-Pellosi and "dingy Harry"—the President's men should have known better (i.e., than to rely upon the continuing abuse of a technicality known as "Budget Reconciliation")—as a substitute for minimal consensus. The whole affair was tantamount to aggravated child endangerment (albeit, perhaps, a crime of unwitting liberals' passion;-).

Anyway, these back-room methods may be forgivable for run-of-the-mill appropriations and some other bills, but not the overhaul of our entire healthcare system! As it is, there are now more states than not that are exercising their Constitutional power—to obstruct implementation; and, with this altogether-legal and IMHO proper opposition, more and more of Obamacare's other congenital defects are coming to light.

As every grade-school-level civic scholar knows, Congress relies upon an
iterative joint-committee gestation process (to prune and groom a Bill into a
viable concensus). But, pursuant to the above Budget Recon' abortion, the
ACA never had this chance; thus, the ACA Obamination (another
unpardonable pun?) should have been still-born, but it wasn't. Thus, denied even basic reform school opportunities, Obamacare
will now suffer both the semi-benign neglect of the States, as well as
its own utterly "unworkable" menagerie of unpopular regulation, all to an agonizingly-timely crib death.

America's alternative healthcare reimbursement schemas are extraordinarily complex (and the ACA has no material impact upon either the incremental costs nor the nature of medicine itself, only access to it); a complete discussion of the Obamcare's glaring "congenital defects", therefore, would occupy more space than fits into a single BLOG post. Moreover, lists of the problems attached to this flawed act seem to grow daily. Near the top my own short list would be these:

Fairly or not, Americans (be it its people, businesses and/or governments) will naturally couple rising costs (and declining reimbursements) with the regime perceivably in control of them; and,...

Americans (be it its people, businesses and/or governments) can be counted on to act rationally (they'll find ways to avoid finding themselves on the ubiquitous subsidizer-side of the ACA equation).

Speaking of rational and rationing, how/who believes that the government will be able to deny coverage to millions upon millions, all with ever-expanding expectations of ever-expanding medical treatments and tonics? As I've said repeatedly, the distorting "death panel" term is reprehensible; that said, the essential function that any/all health plans share, to rationally ration, is nonetheless real and problematic. Elected officials simply will not be able to say no often enough to keep Obamcare's runaway costs in check.

Doubtless, you're as weary of reading rants on Obamacare as I am becoming tired of writting on them. So, let's shift gears for a moment to an entirely different topic: America's beleaguered foreign policy.

With the notable exception of its first-term Secretary of State, the Obama administration seems to comprise decent people; they're not particularly good at managing something as ungainly as the US government, but then not many are. There are a few things however where futility can't be tolerated.

For an assortment of inter-related economic and security reasons, our role in the Mideast region is vital—to the U.S. and the world at large! Moreover, the demonstrable reality of America's (not ot be confused with Americans') exceptionalismis key to global stability. Sadly, it doesn't take a detailed review of the Clinton/Obama record to "demonstrate" how abysmally ham-handed our policy in the Region has been. A little Russian diplomatic jujitsu has shown not just the Syrians how easily we can be played; with no clear pre-existing policy, Obama's bluff is already being called in both subtle and embarrassing ways elsewhere as well.

A little less hubris and a bit more precautionary checking around—with key international allies, Congress, Democrats, etc—may have kept our strategic options open. It may have also spared our President the humiliation of being snubbed by yet another second-rate dictator. Not unlike an unrequited smile to a less-than-the-prettiest-girl in a middle school hallway, Iran's Mullah cum President demured from our guy's advances; and with but one non-action, he also reduced the leader-of-the-free-world's overtures to an in-camera phone call. Then, adding insult to injury to us all, Obama's coquettish call is now being billed by Democratic sycophants (e.g., George Stephenopolis) as a "breakthrough." That's like saying that all should be forgiven as we rejoice in a pyromaniacal child mumbling through the still-locked door in reluctant willingness to discuss how he may someday give up the matches and gasoline kept in his bedroom. Ditto Syria, only in that case, it's his juvenile delinquent buddy that's doing the talking. Who's kidding who? Russians making hollow promises on behalf of their autocratic clients? Iranians that have suffered years of sanctions in pursuit of strategic nuclear weapons only to suddenly decry WMD evils? Give me a break! Has there ever been a more transparent play? Maybe the good Ayatolah has a bridge to sell us?

So, you may be asking, what do these different dimensions of incompetence have to do with one another? And why bring them up together now?

Well, just as Putin dubiously saved Obama's bacon in Syria, the ironic ACA end-game could/should well come in the form of obstreperous Republicans giving him a way out: a way to re-cook the ACA without some its the more toxic ingredients.
But, how much more of this faux luck can we count on? And, finally, is it really too soon to start manning the ramparts against the wickedly self-absorbed Mrs Clinton's all-but-certain assault on the White House? Is another eight years of 1st-person possessive plural pronouns what we want to hear in the approaching age of neo-Clintonionism?

Most all of us were proud to live in a country where a candidate from a historically-downtrodden minority could be elected its leader. And, IMHO Obama's election had less to do with PC running amok than our collective perception of his abilities. Alas, many of us have been disappointed to learn that extraordinary charisma alone does not translate into sound governing; what looked like misguided priorities in this Administration's first term more resemble a beached whale in its second.

One of the several critical jobs a Chief Executive has is to manage key constituents: in the case of our President, that entails care and skill in fashioning important legislative agenda. Another, arguably more critical Presidential requisite involves the ongoing management and maintenance of America's influence over critical global events.
And while we can argue about what a great guy he is, President Obama has blown it: Health Reform (by neglecting its the formation into a workable plan) is, at best, a missed opportunity; and, IMHO he may have also been indirectly playing artless domestic politics (employing Godfather tactics of `keeping his enemies closer') in turning foreign affairs over to a paranoid power-mongering egomanic—i.e., just to get her out of his way.

As much as I abhor ad hominem attacks on individuals, IMHO we've seen enough of Mrs. Clinton through the years not to ignore the shallow depth of her leadership skills (if not her questionable character): begining with serious breaches of ethics in her law practice; to her own even-more bungled Hillarycare domestic policy debacle; to her singularly undistinguished Senatorial record; to the more-recently botched Mideast policies alluded to above and hallmarked by her clear complicity, and duplicity, pursuant to the Benghazi fiasco. Sorry, but pounding on the table defiantly shouting "What difference does it make?" (in response to entirely-appropriate questioning into the cause of four American's deaths) betrays an, at least, reckless irascibility. `seems to me all-too-reminiscent of her recalcitrant rants against Congressional inquiries into her hubby's proven perjury—all, as she'd have had us believe, were mere products of "a vast right-wing conspiracy."

I wish for some confidence that, before 2016, the Republicans will be able to identify a better candidate; I'm already confident, however, that they can hardly do worse than the evil former first lady; even the Democrats' class clown Biden would IMHO be a better choice. In all events, elections do have consequences (witness Obamacare, Libya, Syria and Iran); and they can't all be retroactively fixed through judicial review, misguided rebudgeting tricks or threats of government shut-downs. If any/all the above seems over the top or smacks of a rhetorical drive-by shooting, I plead guilty as charged. I would, however, throw my self at the mercy of the court, indeed claiming it all as an attempted political mercy killing;-) While we're at it, a few extemists to our right may need to be gunned-down (Oops! yet another indelicate pun?;-) as well.

Comments

You certainly cover a lot of ground here Doug and you cover it quite well. You perhaps must go back to the time just before the civil war to see Americans so divided and dug in to their respective positions. Much of this is due to a serious vacuum of leadership at the very top as you point out. The other reasons are, unfortunately, more permanent in nature.

At the base, is a lack of civic knowledge and sense of individual sense of responsibility by our citizens. Some would say we get the leaders we deserve as a reflection of our culture, not as the creators of our culture. Another fundamental cause is that, among those who are civically engaged, there is a fundamental split between two main groups as to the role of government. This is something that is very difficult, if not impossible, to compromise your way through. So, in the end, one side or the other must be beaten so that the country can proceed with some level of common ground.

Last time around, it took a civil war to essentially get the whole country back on the same page. I doubt we'll get to that point this time around but it will take a burning platform of something nearly as calamitous such as a total economic meltdown, an attack using weapons of mass destruction on our shores, or something else of equal magnitude to close the chasm we see today. Wish I could see a different scenario.......but, for now at least, I don't.

Wow! Too much here to respond to and too little time (or energy) to do it. Let me just say we've been down this ACA legitimacy path before and with no discernible change of minds (not that I expected it) only to generate increasingly arcane debating points. It is the law. Amend it. Kill it by electing a veto-override Congress in 2014 or do it with a new President in 2016. That's the option. As every day passes I am more convinced that the opposition's desperation to repeal or delay through extortion is based on a deep seated fear that the damn thing might actually work, and that, polls-be-damned, when it is implemented the public will like it.
I got nothing for you on your foreign policy comments; nothing that is beyond noting that the last White House foreign policy initiatives resulted in two wars, neither of which was paid for, that have cost us 5,000 or so lives. But I realize that comparison is unfair, not nearly as bad as being humiliated by Vlad Putin and the ayatollah.
Lastly, that's a cool picture of a beached whale. Where's George Costanza when we need him?

Wow! A banner day on SilverBulleits: Comments from F.Scott, M.Rex and JJ (by e-mail) the latter briefly cautioning against too much pessimism. Maybe, but I fear that F.Scott's point are dead on. See also similar sentiments at http://silverbulleits.typepad.com/dcs/2012/11/soft-seccession.html.
As usual, M.Rex leaves me wondering how best to reply. This time however, I'm mostly concurring: my points on legislative legitimacy are basically aimed to get numbskulls like Harry Reid open to, at least discuss, substantive changes to a badly broken bill. And FWIW, the King is also right about the right's fear of Obamacare success (as they fear how Democrats will measure it): the history of entitlements is that net recipients grow quickly dependent thus making the whole program more-or-less impervious to material modification--e.g., even when the Dem's evenetually realize the calamity they've wrought, it will by then be impossible to redress.
As for foreign policy (and other things) I often get a somewhat smug feeling of rhetorical victory when the argument from the other side recedes to the past: e.g., alibi's resorting to comparisons to Bush are like Notre Dame fans saying "yes but the Irish used to kick `bama butt."

Whoa, brother. I’m with Scott and Mike….you’ve dumped a lot into this essay and there is much to digest….almost too much for this farmer. (Just curious…..how long did it take you to come up with this essay?)

I have a few reactions to some of the things you wrote, so for the sake of discussion, “Away we go!”.
“Nassim Taleb points out in his most-excellent new book Antifragile most any truly good idea only gets better under challenge; better still upon surviving its testing in real-world disorder”. I couldn’t agree more and my life experience supports this notion. However, your anticipated end game with ACA as well as mine is TBD…totally speculative. You just have cool ways to support your argument and I just think, “Huh?” You may end up being wrong. I may end up being wrong…..or some combination to the two, I would expect. But really.....we have no idea.

“Then, I'll move from the Obama Administration's signature domestic policy to bookend its other: a hopelessly-tattered foreign policy.” Hopelessly tattered? ? Hopelessly? Really? I am sure we could dig up where there have been many tattered foreign policy matters in the past that have eventually come to resolution. My reaction to that statement is, "Did the U.S. avoid or at least postpone another military intervention under the President in Syria….even with all the pivoting that went on? Is the outcome in its current state a failure? Is there any reason for hope in relations with Iran largely due (I assume) by sanctions by the US?"

If Bengazi was bad, which it certainly was with the death of the US diplomats and his entourage, the witch hunt by Darrel Isa seems truly out of proportion with what happened in Iraq. The Salem Witch Trials come immediately to mind.

Why doesn’t Isa and the Republicans prioritize matters in terms of damage done to this country in terms of lives lost and treasury by these disparate incidents? If there is anything criminal that I can think of in government in my lifetime (….outside of, perhaps, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) it’s the Iraq War and the lies we were fed to buy in. Have to admit….. I was a big “yes” because of the WMDs.

“ACA's tortured history". It’s has been tortured by the Republicans who have lied and misled the American people….in particular the low information rubes who so densely populate the “Red State” (no reference to you, Douglas, really…or Scott and Mike. Full disclosure: I suppose my living in the Ozarks where dental hygiene is optional has taken its toll on me....I digress.) BUT...When you have the right-wing Obama haters spewing misinformation and misdirection like a fire hose to incite their listening/watching audiences to revolt….day after day, month after month…… and this is where these Red State Rubes basically get their information….. No wonder it’s a tortured history.....at least for these people. (I respect your views because they are thoughtful, but I have to believe you are in the minority on your side of the argument.....the others are clueless. Whatever Rush or Sean says....) immediately to mind.
Anyhow….not an intellectual argument. Not capable of it really. Long flight today.

I guess I've been living in the Ozarks way too long.....or I'm bored in LA.

Well J.J., back at you. As I posted a few Comments back, and as you echoed this evening, ideas get better under dialectic stress. So I thnaks for them And, it's fair to say that we've stressed a few here;-)
Ideally, this synthesis, antithesis to synthesis process turns upon objective facts (vs. subjective opinion). For example, I believe that I've backed my assertions on the probable failure of Obamacare on solid logic. Moreover, just because its eventual collapse will be so harmful to so many, the right is passionate about doing everything it legally can to abort or delay ACA implementation. Most of us more moderates are uncomfortable with the budget Brinksmanship tactics being used tonight, but are sympathetic to the cause.
As for the torrents of misinformation, IMHO FoxNews does not hold an exclusive franchise there. A truly "fair and balanced" fact checking would turn up, at least, as much editorial slant within CNN and CNBC as well, for that matter CBS, NBC and CBS. But I'm OK with it all: newspapers have leaned one way or another since Thomas Paine and the Federalist Papers. And you know what, somehow us readers have always had a way of working it all out.
As for "tattered foreign policy" I think you have to look through three lenses: residual US power and strategic influence; underlying positions and policies; and, last, credibility and trust. the current Administration has, IMHO, a piss-poor record on, at least, two of these three dimensions. And, inasmuch as I put a substantial portion of the blame at the feet of a certain contemptuous individual, it seemed important to me to call her out on it

Doug: As usual, you have generated some progressive thought. Scott’s observations alone were worth the (likely extensive) time you took to put together your fine post. And per Scott’s thought - while an innate foundation of the split that is being manifested politically today is not so subliminally induced by ‘Cult of personality’ side-shows (both on the left & right, as people are easier to attach than ideas) – one translucent thread running through all comments to your post is this: Being socially-liberal is not the same thing as being a Socialist (e.g., I would be surprised for example if main-stream socialists would count themselves as supporting fiscal conservatism or related vectors). While you may find this a bit ‘orthogonal’ (you use one of your favorite terms) – I would say that while I am socially liberal, I am clearly not a Socialist. Allow me to provide a brief example: Various of my art-friend here in Santa Fe (usually well-heeled) appear to be pro Socialism (and in any case, are certainly hard-core democrats) but in our discussions (usually late into the night fueled by far too much good French wine) – while they are the first to stand up for ACA they would in the same breath utterly reject substituting their current insurance benefits to move to the new exchanges, saying that such legislation is targeted for “…helping the masses…” (meaning not them). Hmmm. Maybe they are right, but this seems to constitute a far too simplistic position to take, as these liberal democrats would also not even remotely entertain opening-up their private studios to share work-spaces with other local less-fortunate creative ‘fellow’ artists). So – when the Senate ‘digs-in’ to shut-down the government, are these actions the telltale signs of blind hypocrisy or only the tired recapitulation of standard liberal veneers (that must be maintained!)? While I am not qualified to answer such complex issues with certainty, it seems to me to be more the latter than the former – and in any case, sustains a pattern on the left (as well as the right in an equally shallow and troubling facade) of caring more about maintaining ‘feel-good’ appearances than engaging in the hard questioning of sincere self-introspection regarding the best course forward for our country (if not the human race). Your posts foster a honest sounding of the many shadows such issues portend.